Chairperson Kirkpatrick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., with a quorum present. Roll Call was taken by Secretary Mary Sloan.

Present: Keith Kirkpatrick, Chairperson Missouri Township

Darin Fugit, Vice-Chairperson Columbia Township

Mary Sloan, Secretary Rocky Fork Township

James Green Cedar Township

Pat Smith Perche Township

David Piest Public Works

Absent: Michael Caruthers Centralia Township

Mike Morgan Bourbon Township

Also present: Stan Shawver, Director Thad Yonke, Staff

Bill Florea, Staff Ora Ramsey, Staff

Commissioner Smith made and Commissioner Green seconded a motion to approve the minutes of September 20, 2000 meeting with no corrections.

Motion passed by acclamation.

Chairman Kirkpatrick read the procedural statement.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS

Request by Larry and Mildred Clark on behalf of Voicestream Wireless

for a permit to allow a transmission facility including a 200’ tower on 16.97 acres,

located at 950 N Rte O, Rocheport.

Chairman Kirkpatrick stated he had received a letter Ken Jacob’s office, which represents the applicants, requesting that the application be tabled and advised that they would submit a revised application at a later date.

Chairman Kirkpatrick then asked for a motion on the request to table the application.

Commissioner Piest made and Commissioner Fugit seconded motion to table request by Larry and Mildred Clark on behalf of Voicestream Wireless for a permit to allow a transmission facility including a 200’ tower on 16.97 acres, located at 950 N Rte O, Rocheport.

David Piest Yes Mary Sloan Yes

Darin Fugit Yes Jim Green Yes

Keith Kirkpatrick Yes Pat Smith Yes

Motion to table request carried. 6 Yes 0 No

REZONING REQUESTS

1. Request by Di Dan Properties, LLC to rezone from A-1 (Agriculture)

to A-2 (Agriculture) of 7.8 acres, more or less, located at 3000 Woodie Proctor

Rd, Columbia.

Thad Yonke gave the following staff report that this property is located at the intersection of Woodie Proctor Road and Smith Hatchery Road, approximately 4 miles south of Columbia. The property is zoned A-1 (Agriculture) as is everything to the north, south, and west. Lands to the east is zoned A-2. There is a house and mobile home on the property. The applicants have asked to have the land rezoned A-2 (Agriculture) with the intent to subdivide the property into 2.5 acre lots. The property is in the Columbia School District and Consolidated Water District No 1. Electricity is provided by Boone Electric Cooperative. The original zoning for this tract is A-1. In 1986 a previous owner requested a Conditional Use Permit to place a mobile home on the lot as a second dwelling to be used by a family member. The mobile home remains on the tract at this time. Staff notified 9 property owners about this request. The Master Plan designates this area as being suitable for agriculture and rural residential land uses. Staff notes the request is consistent with the Master Plan. Additionally Staff notes that the present lot does not comply with the base zoning and that there are at least three other lots to the south of this tract that do not comply with the zoning. Staff recommends approval.

Mr Harrison stated they agreed with the Staff report and that it was thoughtfully put together. The property consists of between 7 and 7.8 acres. They are not entirely sure of the exact acreage. Presently the property has a single-family residence on it. Mr Harrison said that if the rezoning request is granted, his client plans to subdivide the property into at least two lots, depending on what the actual acreage really is. They would present a plat at that time. His client plans to sell the lots and/or develop them with single family residences. Mr Harrison said he does understand and believes that the request does comply with the Master Plan and that A-2 zoning is contemplated for this property.

Open to public hearing.

Those in favor of the request. None.

Those in opposition of the request.

Corey Lieberman, 2855 Woodie Proctor Road, Columbia. Mr Lieberman brought to the Commission’s attention that the land in question was submitted at 7.8 acres and will be divided into 3 different building sites. Based on his research through the mapping department and planning and zoning there is nothing to show that the acreage is more than 7.0 acres. Mr Lieberman stated he understood that it would be reviewed when it got to the plat review stage. He is a neighbor who is concerned about density and wanted his find of 7.0 acres stated for the record.

Mr Lieberman stated he is not opposed to the request, but he is opposed to having three building sites where there is not enough acreage to support them. He is not opposed to the A-2 status, but to too many building sites. At some point the acreage will be determined. He asked if at that point it would still allow for public opinion?

Chairman Kirkpatrick stated that the actual acreage will be determined when the surveying comes along and the plat is actually drawn and submitted for hearing. The plat must show the number of lots and their sizes, the acreage of each of the lots. That hearing will not be open for public discussion.

Lorena Tayman, 2800 W Woodie Proctor, Columbia. Ms Tayman is opposed to the rezoning. She said property is a rural designation and she would like to see it stay that way. The acreage is in the Master Plan to subdivide it, but she simply likes the rural atmosphere and the community.

Closed to public hearing.

The applicant said the acreage, in terms of the determination, was not something that they had made, because they felt it was wasteful spending money surveying it until they knew whether or not the rezoning would be approved. However, they do recognize the acreage minimum. If there aren’t 7.5 acres after the survey – we will not be able to get 3 lots.

Commissioner Piest asked Staff, with regards to the mobile home that is currently on the property, what happens to the status of the conditional use permit if the rezoning is granted.

Staff explained that the underline zoning is a separate issue than the conditional use permit. If when the plat is submitted the platting of the land would place the mobile home onto a different piece of property because of the way the land is being divided, it would have to be assess it’s status based upon the plat. However, the actual underlying zoning, the conditional use permit could have been requested on either an A-1 or an A-2 piece. So as far as the status of the conditional use permit, if it is still in effect and valid now, changing the zoning to A-2 really doesn’t change the status of the conditional use permit. Other actions may but the zoning itself would not. The platting might and since Staff has not seen a plat Staff really can’t speak the specifics on that at this point.

Chairman Kirkpatrick stated that the mobile home is essentially on a non-conforming tract, because it is smaller than the 10-acre minimum.

Commissioner Piest reminded the applicant not to forget that road right-of-way would have to be rededicated and that would be half of a 33 footer or half of a 66 footer, which will take a few tenths of an acre off the total. So it’s going to be real close as to whether the applicant can get 2 lots or 3 lots. Commissioner Piest stated he would hate to see the rezoning granted and end up with a dwelling unit, and a site built home and a mobile home on one of the 3 lots. That would be roughly 2.5 acres with two dwellings on it and that becomes a problem.

Staff responded to Chairman Kirkpatrick’s question by explaining that there is a possibility of two dwellings on one lot. Staff stated that it depends on the specific status of the conditional use permit and the layout of the property.

Mr Miller stated that from the physical layout perspective, based on where the mobile home is located, it would be exceedingly tight for that (2 dwellings on one lot) to occur and that is not his general desire. His general desire is for the highest and best use and the greatest economic return is to put houses on the property verses a somewhat aging mobile home. That is his general concept of the maximization of value and the way to make it a conforming use.

Mr Miller does own the property at present. He plans to remove the mobile home and place a house there unless somebody puts enough money in front of him that they talk him out of that particular perspective.

Commissioner Sloan commented that she had a problem with the request because it seems real vague.

Stan Shawver explained that the conditional use permit was originally issued as a second dwelling for a family member. The way the Zoning Regulations work when that condition no longer applies it is supposed to be removed. At what point the property was sold and the family members moved out we do not know. There is not a reporting requirement on that. It is also possible that the people that are renting the house and that are renting the mobile home are related. So the condition wouldn’t still apply. The true fact is that when you come in to plat, lots smaller than 5 acres, in subdivisions, are not permitted to have mobile homes. If the mobile home is going to remain on that lot through the platting process, they will either have to apply for a conditional use permit, under the County Regulations, or it will have to be removed.

Commissioner Piest said that it is possible that someone might buy one of the lots after it is subdivided and has a family member that wants to live in the mobile home – would the conditional use permit still be in effect or would it change because of the rezoning.

Stan Shawver stated that if someone buys the entire tracts and lives in the house and a family member lives in the home – the conditional use permit would still be valid. If they plat the land, with the question of whether there is 7.5 acres there, Staff does not see a way for them to achieve a 5-acre lot and 2.5 acre lot that conforms to Zoning Regulations. The only way the mobile home can remain is if all the lots were 5-acre lots; or if another conditional use permit was applied for and received.

Commissioner Sloan asked if the conditional use permit stayed with the property through the many subsequent owners as it has. Stan Shawver responded that was true, but that there was no requirement to report or monitor property ownership over a period of time.

Mr Miller reported that there is no one living in the mobile home at the time.

Commissioner Piest asked for clarification if it was correct to say, that once this ceased being the acreage that the conditional use permit was granted for then it is no longer a valid permit. Staff told Commissioner Piest he was correct.

Commissioner Smith made and Commissioner Fugit seconded motion to approve request by Di Dan Properties, LLC to rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to A-2 (Agriculture) of 7.8 acres, more or less, located at 3000 Woodie Proctor Rd, Columbia.

Bill Florea gave this staff report that the property is located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Barry Road and Bluebird Lane, approximately one mile south of Pierpont. A house, barn and lagoon currently occupy proposed Lot 2.

All lots will have frontage on and access to Barry Road. Lot 3 will also have frontage on and access to Bluebird Lane. Right of way sufficient to provide a 33’ half width for Bluebird Lane is dedicated by this plat. There is an existing 66’ wide right of way for Barry Road therefore; no additional right of way will be dedicated for that road. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a traffic analysis.

The property is in the service area of Consolidated Water District Number 1.

Onsite wastewater systems will be used for sewage disposal. A plan showing a suitable location for a lagoon on each lot has been submitted and is on file. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a wastewater cost benefit analysis.

Commissioner Piest and Jim Patchett agreed that this is the same plat that the two had talked about a couple of weeks prior. They talked about the 66’ right-of-way for Barry Road. They had also talked about the discussion they had had a couple of years ago and Mr Patchett stated he ‘has it all straightened out’.

Commissioner Green made and Commissioner Smith seconded motion to approve

Bill Florea gave this staff report that the property is located approximately 600 feet north of the corner of the intersection of Robbie Forbis Road and State Route Y, approximately ¾ mile east of Ashland. The property is undeveloped. L.M.C. Estates Plat 1, immediately south of the subject property was approved last month.

The lot will have frontage on Robbie Forbis Road. Right of way sufficient to provide a 33-foot half-width for Robbie Forbis road is dedicated by this plat. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a traffic analysis.

The property is in the service area of Consolidated Public Water District Number 1. There is a 4" waterline along Route Y.

An on-site wastewater system will be used for sewage disposal. A plan showing a suitable location for a wastewater system has been submitted and is on file. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a wastewater cost-benefit analysis.

The property scored 66 points on the rating system.

Staff recommends approval of the plat and waiver requests.

Steve Heying, 1202 Madison, Columbia, MO. Mr Heying represented the plat. He stated he had submitted Lot 1 at the last Planning and Zoning Meeting and had forgotten to submit this one at the same time. There will not be any more divisions of this property.

Commissioner Sloan made and Commissioner Piest seconded motion to approve

Thad Yonke gave this staff report that this site is located on the west side of Celtic Drive north of the intersection of Coats Lane and Celtic Drive. The site is approximately 1/2 mile from the Columbia City Limits and approximately 1 mile south of the intersection of Coats Lane and Gillespie Bridge Road. The property is currently zoned A-2 (Agriculture) as is all the surrounding property. These are all the original 1973 zonings. The request encompasses 5.48 acres and shows a consolidation of the original two lots into a single lot. There currently is an existing house and in-ground swimming pool on lot 19 while lot 20 is currently vacant. The site is within the Columbia School District, Boone Electric’s service area, and The Boone County Fire Protection District. Water service is provided by the Consolidated Public Water Service District #1. The owner has requested a waiver from the traffic analysis and cost benefit analysis for sewer, and staff concurs with this request. The proposal rates 47 points on the point rating scale.

Staff recommends approval of the plat and waiver requests.

Dan Brush, 506 Nichols Street, Columbia, MO. Mr Brush represented the plat and explained the purpose of the replat. The purpose is to build an accessory use structure on the tract and the owners wanted it a bigger tract.

Commissioner Smith made and Commissioner Green seconded motion to approve

Thad Yonke gave this staff report that the property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of State Route N & Bluebird Lane. The site is approximately 3 & 1/2 miles south of the Columbia municipal limits. The subject tract is zoned A-2 (Agriculture) as is all the surrounding property. These are all original 1973 zonings. In November of 1989 and July of 1990 requests were submitted to place a radio tower on this property, both were denied. The property is currently vacant. In August of 2000 a rezoning request for A-R/PRD (Agricultural Residential Planned Residential Development), a review plan, and associated preliminary plat were denied by both the P&Z Commission and County Commission. The proposed plat contains 35 lots on the 94.04-acre parcel. This property is located within the Boone Electric service area, the Columbia School District, and the Boone County Fire Protection District. Water service is provided by Consolidated Public Water District No.1. The water district engineers have indicated that there is not sufficient water service for fire protection of this development at this time. Water line extensions and up-grades will be required to meet the required fire flow for the development and these will be at the developer’s cost. Sewage treatment is proposed to be from a central collector wastewater system to be located on the north portion of the property. This facility will have to be permitted by the state department of natural resources and given to the BCRSD for operation and maintenance. It is our understanding that the sewage system may be a STEP (Septic Tank Effluent Pump) system with a sand-filter type treatment facility. Additional right-of-way to provide a minimum 33’ 1/2 width as measured from the existing centerlines of both Bluebird Lane and State Route N will be required. Additional ROW is also being proposed for future road reconstruction along the south & west edges of lot 6. Roads within this development will be required to be constructed in compliance with county standards and will have to be hard surface. Curb & guttering and sidewalks are not required for this subdivision. The Master Plan designates this area as being suitable for agriculture and rural residential land uses. The neighbors and other interested citizens are expressing concerns and questions about the development of this property and staff continues to explain the process and address the questions to the extent available. The proposal has 58 points on the point rating system.

Since the preliminary plat can be made to meet the subdivision regulations, staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:

That a no-access easement be added to the lots along Route N and no direct access be allowed to State Route N.

That required water improvements be completed to provide required fire flow and that it be recognized that this is the developer cost.

That the location of the treatment facility be considered an important aspect of the subdivision design and that it is recognized that if the location is moved, a new preliminary plat submission will be required.

That the exact relocation of Bluebird Lane be worked out with staff & MoDOT prior to final platting.

That the stormwater & erosion control suggestions for the lakes & site provided by the NRCS be followed as requirements.

That proper covenants or other control mechanisms be created for the maintenance of the common areas prior to submission of any final plats for the property.

Mr Beckett began by saying that this is the same property that was submitted before for a planned development, which was rejected. They are now presenting a request, which is understood to be a technically correct A-2 subdivision plat. The applicant is willing to meet all of the conditions that are set forth in the Staff report. They have already made notations on the plat that access would be limited to Rte N, except for the main entrance on Brook Valley Dr, which will be the main entrance into the subdivision. They have also provided on the preliminary plat, the additional right-of-way necessary to take Blue Bird to a wider right-of-way and also to make sure there is 33.5 feet of right-of-way on their side of the center line of Rte N. They intend to have central sewage treatment in this subdivision. The streets are going to be concrete in this subdivision. There will be a second lake down in the southern part of this subdivision plat. In generally the same location it was shown on the planned development that was presented last time. The developer is working with the Water District on the water supply. They are close to a resolution on installation of the necessary water lines that will bring adequate water into the area. They realize this is their responsibility.

Chairman Kirkpatrick stated he did not mean to be redundant, but asked Staff if they were satisfied that the plat does indeed meet all the requirements of the subdivision regulations for a preliminary plat.

Staff responded that for a preliminary plat with the conditions it meets our regulations for the subdivision requirements.

Chairman Kirkpatrick stated that he hoped that if the plat is approved that the second lake would be shown on the final plat also.

Mr Samuel pointed out to the Commission that the second lake is shown on the sheet 3 (which is the secondary sheet).

Commissioner Piest stated that a better definition location of the paved portion of the State Hwy has now been shown on the plat, as was requested. He also reiterated item 4, that the exact relocation of Blue Bird Lane be worked out with Staff and MoDOT prior to final platting. Commissioner Piest stated that is very critical with the location of Blue Bird.

Mr Beckett said that was certainly agreeable and at the applicant’s best interests as well.

Commissioner Piest made and Commissioner Smith seconded motion to approve